Empathy — people not even comprehending some answers to their own questions (presentations, masks)
The topic today is something I term ‘non-empathy’. Maybe there is a better term for it, but if so, I haven’t encountered it (maybe there is a German word for it, along the lines of schadenfreude…). This is a scenario where a person or organization is so convinced that one perspective is ‘correct’ that they cannot even conceive of a larger set of perspectives. While I’m sure there are plenty of examples of this phenomenon in non-work settings, I’ve found that work provides the instances that I notice. Politics might be another realm where this could be found, but I’m trying to limit this to scenarios where there is no other underlying motivation. I will cite two examples.
The first was the management of a company where I used to work. Certain roles, including mine, sometimes had to present the status of some initiative to a larger group, usually including higher managers. I personally did not particularly care for that aspect of the job, to be honest. Too often, these sessions were only partially about presenting information. They were often used by some of the attendees for grandstanding for their own position. Presentations also seemed to be a common venue for executives to argue amongst themselves, sometimes about topics only tangentially relevant to the subject. What I found most interesting, though, was the apparent belief that everyone enjoyed or looked forward to this. I’m not claiming that my perspective was universal, but I know that a fair percentage of my peers did not look forward to these sessions. However, based on communication from our management, they acted as if providing these opportunities was our most cherished wish — probably because those managers *did* enjoy it. They couldn’t conceive of anyone *not* enjoying it. I recall being puzzled by this until I understood their perspective. In trying to provide more of what they think everyone wants, they are actually producing a dissatisfier for some sizable percentage of their audience.
The other was a more recent corporate position — the ‘return to the office’, post-Covid. For months, we received communication about why the office would remain largely closed. This wasn’t surprising at the time. At some point, this evolved to the office being open for anyone who chose to return if they wanted or needed to ‘collaborate’. Apparently, this did not result in a mass migration back to the office. The company seemed a bit puzzled and started assuring everyone that they understood that people may not feel ‘safe’, etc. One aspect, that I think was only partially understood by upper management, was that 18+ months of enforced work-from-home policies had demonstrated to a large percentage of employees that they could be as or more productive working remotely. The only motivations for a return to the office, therefore, would be things like needing to work physically in the same space with your group; wanting face-to-face contact with co-workers; etc. The main point that I think management missed was their mandatory masking policy. They have left that in effect even now. I think they believe that this is some sort of draw, so that employees will feel protected in the office. However, based on scattered but increasingly common questions, my take is that people would be *more* likely to return to the office if masks were at least made personally optional. The policy is in reality a disincentive for many employees, but management cannot even conceive of this so none of their decisions or communication include that perspective. So, they continue to undermine what they are actually trying to foster.
Neither of the cases above represent any sort or bad faith or questionable intent. It appears to me that it is just an inability to appreciate a sufficiently wide set of viewpoints, leading to potentially counterproductive decisions.
